Hi Anthony,
On the whole I like the composition; it is revealing two different perspectives of shags sunning themselves on a wetland. My question to you now is, would this composition be more interesting if the bird in the background was a little clearer?
In an instance like this, I would have been inclined to use a smaller aperture to get a better depth of field.
I notice from the data that you made this photograph at f8 at 200 ISO. Now you cannot just close down the aperture without compensating by either increasing the ISO or increasing the duration of the exposure time.
To get a better depth of field in this photograph I would close down the aperture two stops to f16. If you made this photograph using a tripod then you would be able to compensate by slowing your shutter speed two stops from 1/500s down to 1/125s.
Alternatively you could have increased the ISO to 400 and made the photograph at 1/250 of the second. Either way, you would see more of that shag in background and at the same time you would add more definition to the lines in the landscape.
Food for thought for next time!
Finally, if you're entering an image to the Image Doctor – or any competition really – you're chances of being published are greatly improved if your image is not covered by an ugly watermark. Normally we do not publish watermarked images!
Cheers,
the other Anthony!